User talk:Leo Lazauskas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Leo Lazauskas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 08:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Massstab.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Massstab.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stan 12:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Klvawt.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Klvawt.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kanck

Do you have a list of the members who voted for and against? Media article? Hansard? I'm having a lot of trouble finding a decent news story on this, they all report the same one-eyed story and mention nothing of the facts. And hansard doesn't appear to be up yet. Timeshift 14:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I took the list from news reports on the ABC radio throughout the day. All Libs voted against, Parnell against. Xenophon, Bressington and all Labor for the suppression. I do not know how some of the Inds voted so I have not changed their pages.

Oh, and is this the way you talk to others on wiki? Or am I just talking to myself in public again?

The vote does not need to be mentioned in the article of every single parliamentarian, especially given the small size of the articles and the minor issue at hand. michael talk 14:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Suppression of material from Hansard is not a minor issue. I believe it is in the public interest for voters to know how each of their reps voted on this issue.

It is a minor issue in the larger scheme of things—there will no doubt be many more votes on many more issues and to include every single one would be a waste of time. If people want to know how their parliamentarian voted on every single issue, then there are better places for them to be listed than here. michael talk 14:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you'll have to demonstrate, not only that you know what "the larger scheme of things is", but that you also know better than anyone else. ;-)

House of Assembly MP's see at least four years in office if they stay for an entire term; Legislative Council MP's see eight. There would be thousands of votes on thousands of peices of legislation: abortion, privatisation, trade, economy, etc. With most articles on parliamentarians being stubs and one or two paragraphs, to include one vote out of thousands is grossly imbalanced. michael talk 14:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

They are stubs precisely because people don't put enough on their pages. I'm happy to put more of the way SA politicians vote on controversial issues, and how the votes sometimes split on party lines, sometimes in other ways. I agree that not all issues need to be recorded, but I still maintain that the current issue is controversial enough to warrant separate entries. I would prefer that my contributions remain, howver I suspect you're going to delete more than you contribute yourself.

If you wish to greatly expand articles on SA parliamentarians, go ahead. For examples of 'completed' articles, take a look at Thomas Playford IV, Robin Millhouse, Don Dunstan and Mick O'Halloran. Remember to sign your posts with four tides (~~~~) - it produces your user name and the time your comment was made. If you need any help with editing, or Wikipedia in general, don't hesistate to ask me on my talk page. michael talk 15:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Your permission to expand articles on SA parliamentarians is greatly appreciated. Can I choose those that I wish to expand, or am I restricted to your suggestions? Leo 15:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Anything you want - I hold the keys to absolutely nothing here! People are free to expand any article on any topic in any way they wish. Wikipedia's motto is "be bold"! michael talk 15:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a hard issue... on the one hand, putting this on every single MLCs page is not the way to go, but at the same time this is sets a major precedent, as they have effectively passed hansard censorship. I am not sure what the answer to this is. There could perhaps be an argument for this issue in itself to get a wiki page, or perhaps a democrats sub-section page. As I said, it does set a major precedent. Also, in regards to independents, you mentioned them (Xenophon and Bressington). They are the only two independents in the LC. Timeshift 15:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It's best to mention it on Kanck's page, and if one exists, the state Democrats' page. michael talk 15:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Xenophon's committment to civil rights issues has been called into question in the discussion of his page. I reverted again to include his vote on an unprecedented issue.

Xenophon has voted on many 'unprecedented' issues; this one deserves no primacy whatsoever. Wikipedia isn't a on-the-fly news service. You've offered no reasons for why this issue-of-the-moment deserves to be mentioned but thousands of others do not. In addition, no reason has been given for the necessity of including votes at all; MP's vote every single day on trivial issues. This little issue will play no part in Xenophon's, and any other parliamentarian's (besides Kanck's), career. michael talk 15:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It's only your opinion as to whether it will, or will not, be of importance. It is a fact, however, that this is the first suppression of Hansard from publication on the internet. That is enough reason for me to add it to the pages I chose. If you want to include how he votes on Pork Belly Futures you have my whole-hearted support. I'll choose issues I feel are important and add them to where I want. You, of course, can choose to delete more than you contribute. I see it as a form of suppression in itself though. Your opinion is clearly different. Leo 15:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You haven't offered any counter-argument or any reasoning why they belong, you've simply stated that you're going to do this and that, and how you will do it as you please. I take offence when you charge that I "delete more than [I] contribute"; I wrote a number of those particlular pages and have been contributing here for quite some time. Wikipedia, as I've stated, is not an on-the-fly news service where we add this week's latest events. There's no need to be recalcitrant. michael talk 02:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your *opinion* is that it is an ephemeral issue. You are removing *facts* based on your opinion. As this a Christian agenda? Leo 02:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What an absurd and misguided accusation. I'm removing irrelevant fact. michael talk 03:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Why did you log out to revert all the pages? michael talk 03:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw my contributions deleted and reverted some pages before I saw I wasn't logged in. Leo 03:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Can I offer a compromise? For the issue to be stated on the pages of Sandra Kanck, Mike Rann and Bob Sneath (LC President). It concerns those individuals through more than a vote, whilst the rest of the MP's have little to do with the issue. michael talk 03:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I would accept if you also include Xenophon who could have defeated the motion with Bressington, and Holloway who moved the motion in the LC. Bressington's motion on drink-driving is cursorily mentioned, so why not an issue that is not within her "ambit" for want of a better word? People who voted for her, via X no doubt, should be able to see how she votes on issues. Leo 03:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As Holloway introduced the motion, yes, its notable on his page. With regard to Xenophon and Bressington, I can't say the same. Any combination of members (with disregard to party identification) could have resulted in its suppression, so to single out those two for supporting it does not bode well. michael talk 03:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree and I would also like my contributions for Gago and Zollo to stand. They are ministers (and an assistant) with portfolios in Health who voted to suppress internet publication of Aust. Bureau of Statistics data pertaining to a mental health issue. They are facts and as such more relevant than your (Christian) opinion or agenda. Leo 05:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Why, exactly, do you continue to mention my faith when it is completely irrelevant to this issue (or anything else on Wikipedia for that matter)? I don't spend the entirety of my life or come onto Wikipedia to preach or proselytise—hinting at such ulterior motives is nothing more than some kind of farcical, misguided allegation. If you're not already aware, its an absolute insult to note my faith in such a pejorative manner; hearing such a thing from anyone is quite tedious.
Dispel any erroneous thoughts about a non-existent 'agenda'.
I offered a very reasonable compromise and went further. Keep the issue at hand on the pages of those that it is directly relevant to: Rann, Kanck, Sneath and Holloway. Other than those four, the rest had little appreciable dealings in the matter. michael talk 06:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You are the one who advertises their religious faith on your userpage. Is this for us to judge how you edit? What you edit? Who you are?

Gago and Zollo are relevant. Their portfolios are health-related.

You only offer opinions and you delete facts. That's Ok, but don't expect everyone to agree with your world view, nor with your claim that you "know the big picture". A laughable assertion if I ever heard one. Leo 06:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You've given me a number of sly personal attacks, and I'm not going to waste any more time talking to someone so rude. michael talk 07:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking at your talk page it seems I'm not the only one to take a dislike to your opinion-based editing methods. Maybe it's you, not us. Leo 07:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

To add my two cents worth after my last contribution in this talk page, I happen to think this issue (unprecedented hansard suppression) should appear on some but not all. I believe it should be on Sandra Kanck, Mike Rann and Bob Sneath as michael suggested, however I also believe it should be on Xenophon's, Bressingtons, Mark Parnells (Green), and the two Family First MLCs. They are the "independents" (for want of a better collective term) who are not bound by Labor/Liberal party voting lines, with the exception of Rann and Sneath, but they are for obvious reasons. They have voted for hansard suppression (bar Parnell) and it should be stated in their profile. Timeshift 07:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd compromise for that. But Gago spoke to the motion so I included an excerpt on her page. Leo

[edit] Bulk fact tagging

I think it is highly unorthodox and way not useful to add such tags especially if you aren't going around to correct some flaws the encyclopedia has. If you would be part of the fact-tagging/fact-correcting project (I don't know if it exists but) I would understand you would help in finding sources to corroborate with the mentioned unsourced statements the articles claim but you aren't. On the english wikipedia we tolerate such behaviour but on the Japanese Wikipedia it is not tolerated by the sysops. Be kind and lend a hand at trying to find sources for the unsourced facts. An example, for the article on Autar Singh Paintal, it took me less than a minute to find a source and I looked through Google Scholar. If you disagree and aren't happy with my comment, feel free to discuss it. Lincher 03:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just going through some random articles and when I spotted mistakes in spelling or grammar, and claims that I thought needed to have some backing, I tagged them. I have no idea whether this approach is orthodox or not.

I thought that it would be helpful to tag claims that require substantiation. Why isn't this helpful?

All the best, Leo 10:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It is for the fact that you don't even try to fact-check these claims that don't have some backing. Adding these tags will only create a backlog in the process and is not helpful. I, for one, try to remove these tags because it is sometimes in books that you can verify the credibility of some statements but since you don't have the books, you have to assume good faith in that people add facts in the best of their knowledge.
A second thing, please answer on people's talk page because it is tough to know if you answer to me because I don't get a new message tag. Lincher 13:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping the peace

Hi Leo. I've noticed you about performing much-needed clean-ups and making great contributions to a many articles. However, I've also noticed a few discussions you've been engaged in. Please give more consideration to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines with regards to user interaction. On a number of occassions you've failed (eg, here and here) to assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, with some of your comments seeming to border on personal attacks. It is vitally important that users conduct themselves civilly and in accordance with Wikiquette to keep the peace. Thanks, --cj | talk 17:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

One day I'll cut my legs off, I'll burn myself alive, I'll do anything to avoid cloying condescension. Leo 13:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
It's simple to avoid: just follow what I've said above.--cj | talk 10:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to buy a pet bunny and name him "GroupThink". Every time he twitches his little nose I'll think of your advice. Leo 03:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/e/o/User_talk%7ELeo_Lazauskas_1c51.html"